6153 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

psyche101, on 04 April 2011 - 06:22 AM, said:

I think the clouds are quite indicative of the atmospheric conditions that night.

Wrong again!! Try another explanation.

We had clouds over the area, before and after the incident, and yet,  no shooting on the scale of the LA incident. The same thing happened over the Soviet Union, which many here, were unaware of.,and the objects were not balloons nor smoke plums  either.

You see, there is much that you don't know about such incidents.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 April 2011 - 06:35 AM.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

The army open fire on an object that came in from the ocean

No, they did not fire on anything on the MORNING of the 24th.

From the link you provided:

Quote

On the 24th, a warning issued by naval intelligence indicated that an attack could be expected within the next ten hours.

The initial targetwas lost and remained that way for approximately 3 hours. Then another target was picked up 120 miles out. This too was lost. From your link:

Quote

" even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished. At 0243, planes were reported near Long Beach, and a few minutes later a coast artillery colonel spotted "about 25 planes at 12,000 feet" over Los Angeles. At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon "the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano."

I think you better go over your information there Sky.

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

Shrotly after 3 AM

Yet by 2:22am the Target was lost! QUite some fancy work there tracking a lost target!

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

You had the SCR-268, which was confirmed by two SCR-270 longer-ranged radars

Which RADAR picked it up? Not model numbers, location, not a good enough dodge there.

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

It slowed down from over 250 mph, to a crawl where at times, it just hovered before heading toward Long Beach.

The lost target exhibited this behavoir did it? Simply amazing.

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

I am sure you know that, but in case you don't, here you go. Homework Time

Seems to confirm what I have been saying.

Quote

and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout. Thereafter the information center was flooded with reports of "enemy planes, " even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished

The target "Vanished".

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:13 AM, said:

Sorry,but I bet ther are Army troppers at Fort Hood who would disagree with you.,and you must know by now there is more to the story, so when I told you the LA incident remain unexplain to this very day, sit back and understand what I mean.

Appeal to authority again? Quite universal that isn't it. Shame it does not help your case, but makes it look worse. Disagree until they are blue in the face, they cannot prove me wrong though can they? The only reason this is unexplained is because there is very likely a cover up to minimalise the impact of the collateral damage. The Army shot the wrong thins - themselves. Still happens today - 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

Wrong again!! Try another explanation.

We had clouds over the area, before and after the incident, and yet,  no shooting on the scale of the LA incident. The same thing happened over the Soviet Union, which many here, were unaware of.,and the objects were not balloons nor smoke plums  either.

You see, there is much that you don't know about such incidents.

You are not making sense. You are saying that the clouds in the photo have no bearing on the weather that night?

And then you say "there were clouds there the night before, why not fire the night before" And Russia has clouds but does not fire at them?

Are you serious?

I think you had better re-read your post and try again. You are making no sense, slow down a a tad there.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

Apparently, that doesn't apply to me. However, ti applied to you when you posted bad into' in regards to the Air Force's Roswell reports,where both reports have now been proven false.

Yes it does, look around you, or do you think it's the rest of the world? What else do you call a conviction based on faith?

Bad into? That offer still stands you know. I would not be the only one to appreciate you taking this offer up. You have no clue about the reports, you have not read them. Other people's opinion's do not count as your own.

You promised Pax (and others) that you would give that Roswell camp fire ETH a rest. Why did you go back on your word?

Edited by psyche101, 04 April 2011 - 06:50 AM.

[lost_shaman]

skyeagle409, on 04 April 2011 - 06:23 AM, said:

All he had to do was to look at a map to see that there was a lot of area 100 miles west of Los Angeles to place radar units, which for the best effect, would have been  placed 100 miles west of Los Angeles.

All that was needed was someone to suggest a logical explanation. Had you been that person people might respect you for clarifying or even 'researching'! Since that was not the case, why do feel this is something you can hold against certain people like booN especially?

The only thing booN was guilty of was asking questions based on new evidence. Way to go booN that's how this is supposed to work! Yet, in the Birdman's world this is proof of another 'failure' to take his word about E.T. visitation as 'Truth', again by another 'Skeptic'. Big deal. Maybe the Birdman will write a book one day titled "1001 Skeptics dismissed 1001 E.T. visitations". I wouldn't read that, would you?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

skyeagle409, on 03 April 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

Ngiht bombing by Japanese fighter aircraft from an aircraft carrier at night, would  not have been a prudent thing to do and the army would have known it..Ever tried to land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier without the proper landing devices att night?



Of course there is an object, after all, an object is what is stopping those searchlight beams.

Common sense logic says that you don't use such a heavy barrage to shoot down a simple weather balloon when aircraft can do a bettter job more effectively without causing widespread damage and death and destruction, especially since weather balloons posed no danger in the first place, nor could  any balloon stand up to such a barrage. Think about it.



Plasma played no role either.

Are you deliberately trying to be perverse? One moment you say "it would have been utterly ridiculous to try to launch an air strike at night", so [presumably] the AA defenses wouldn't have opened up because they'd have know it wouldn't be a raid; and then the very next moment you say that they wouldn't have tried to shoot down a Balloon with AA fire, but would've sent up a  fighter. So how do you suppose this fighter would have found the target? How many radar equipped night fighters did the USAAF have at the beginning of '42? Keeping track of where he was at night, even over brightly lit California, would have been enough of a challenge for a single-seater pilot, never mind trying to also look for a target that might or might not have been there at all.

[Slave2Fate]

747400, on 04 April 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

Are you deliberately trying to be perverse? One moment you say "it would have been utterly ridiculous to try to launch an air strike at night", so [presumably] the AA defenses wouldn't have opened up because they'd have know it wouldn't be a raid; and then the very next moment you say that they wouldn't have tried to shoot down a Balloon with AA fire, but would've sent up a  fighter. So how do you suppose this fighter would have found the target? How many radar equipped night fighters did the USAAF have at the beginning of '42? Keeping track of where he was at night, even over brightly lit California, would have been enough of a challenge for a single-seater pilot, never mind trying to also look for a target that might or might not have been there at all.

Good point about using a plane to shoot down a balloon being unfeasible. They had .50 cal. guns at the BoLA incident and indeed from what I understand the majority of rounds fired were from those guns as opposed to the 3" AA guns. You could fire several hundred rounds of .50 cal. and it would still be cheaper and more efficient than putting up a plane to shoot a balloon. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

However landing a plane at night is far far easier to do on a normal runway. Trying to land on an aircraft carrier at night is something best avoided if at all possible. That is if the planes planned on returning. That is the point I think that Sky might be trying to make. Kamikazes I don't know much about but I would imagine a kamikaze run would be better during daylight hours as it would be easier for the pilots to see the targets.

ETA: Not sure why we are discussing possible Japanese battle strategies as an attack by the Japanese obviously didn't happen. Although if it puts the coastal defense strategies in perspective then I guess it makes sense.

Edited by Slave2Fate, 04 April 2011 - 08:14 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

oh, you're very right, but since, on December 6th, no one would probably have imagined that the Japanese attacking a US Navy base was remotely feasible, I don't suppose anyone with any sense would have been willing to take the chance on not doing anything because it was a false alarm.

[psyche101]

Slave2Fate, on 04 April 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Good point about using a plane to shoot down a balloon being unfeasible. They had .50 cal. guns at the BoLA incident and indeed from what I understand the majority of rounds fired were from those guns as opposed to the 3" AA guns. You could fire several hundred rounds of .50 cal. and it would still be cheaper and more efficient than putting up a plane to shoot a balloon. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

However landing a plane at night is far far easier to do on a normal runway. Trying to land on an aircraft carrier at night is something best avoided if at all possible. That is if the planes planned on returning. That is the point I think that Sky might be trying to make. Kamikazes I don't know much about but I would imagine a kamikaze run would be better during daylight hours as it would be easier for the pilots to see the targets.

ETA: Not sure why we are discussing possible Japanese battle strategies as an attack by the Japanese obviously didn't happen. Although if it puts the coastal defense strategies in perspective then I guess it makes sense.

Hey mate, just for clarification

I think it was I that started the Japanese Battle strategies, as Skyeagle seemed to think that nobody would fly in from the ocean at night, but loss if life was part of the plan I do not see why aircraft batteries would not open fire if they thought Japanese were coming in. Sky said that pilots would not fly at night from an aircraft carrier, and I figured, well, they probably would if returning meant dishonor. I do not think the servicemen would refuse to open fire if they did see a Japanese plane on the basis that the Japanese pilots just would not do that, so it must be a mistake.

All loosely based on

Quote

At 0243, planes were reported near Long Beach, and a few minutes later a coast artillery colonel spotted "about 25 planes at 12,000 feet" over Los Angeles.

Surely this would not help "war nerves"

I feel that if a gunner saw a Japanese plane, at night or otherwise, I think he would fire on it. No questions asked, and would not ponder as to how the poor fellow was going to land on a boat at night.

Cheers.

PS, pretty much what 747400 said above

Edited by psyche101, 04 April 2011 - 08:32 AM.

[Slave2Fate]

psyche101, on 04 April 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

Hey mate, just for clarification

I think it was I that started the Japanese Battle strategies, as Skyeagle seemed to think that nobody would fly in from the ocean at night, but loss if life was part of the plan I do not see why aircraft batteries would not open fire if they thought Japanese were coming in. Sky said that pilots would not fly at night from an aircraft carrier, and I figured, well, they probably would if returning meant dishonor. I do not think the servicemen would refuse to open fire if they did see a Japanese plane on the basis that the Japanese pilots just would not do that, so it must be a mistake.

All loosely based on



Surely this would not help "war nerves"

I feel that if a gunner saw a Japanese plane, at night or otherwise, I think he would fire on it. No questions asked, and would not ponder as to how the poor fellow was going to land on a boat at night.

Cheers.

PS, pretty much what 747400 said above

Absolutely agreed. During that time I'm sure even the mention of Japanese planes was enough to make most soldiers trigger fingers twitch. Under a full on alert with someone saying they spotted planes you know there were soldiers that were more than ready to shoot at any given target.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 04 April 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

.A trigger. Take the cotton wool out of your ears. A trigger for the barrage is not the target.

The balloon was a target if we take the military report as accurate, as they state at 0306 balloon sighted, then at 0307 the controller orders it to be shot down.

psyche101, on 04 April 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Yet by 2:22am the Target was lost!

NO the target was still 'well tracked at 0223' again according to the military analysis.

Anyhow, I dont think that the report is accurate, and seeing as most of our debate revolves around this I dont think we will get anywhere unless we determine the real chain of events. So I am going to leave the BOLA and wait for another case to discuss that can actually be more fruitfull in our persuit of ET

[Lilly]

Ok folks, this is not some kind of contest of "I'm right you're wrong". We're dealing with evidence here. And, since we don't at this time have definitive irrefutable evidence one way or the other then it's bound to end up with people simply choosing to believe the ETH or not.

This is just the way things are and insisting that ones own position is the 'correct' one doesn't change the available evidence one bit. So, with this in mind let's strive to keep the bickering to a minimum.

[Slave2Fate]

quillius, on 04 April 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Anyhow, I dont think that the report is accurate, and seeing as most of our debate revolves around this I dont think we will get anywhere unless we determine the real chain of events. So I am going to leave the BOLA and wait for another case to discuss that can actually be more fruitfull in our persuit of ET

I agree, it seems as though we've (yet again   ) exhausted the BoLA case. As for the bolded part, good luck, I've been waiting since I joined this thread (the original BE1 thread actually)...still waiting unfortunately.

[quillius]

Slave2Fate, on 04 April 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

I agree, it seems as though we've (yet again   ) exhausted the BoLA case. As for the bolded part, good luck, I've been waiting since I joined this thread (the original BE1 thread actually)...still waiting unfortunately.

Hey S2F, maybe we did exhaust it again although I am sure even more info came to light this time, possibly to no real avail but progress of sort nonetheless.

As for better cases, I think Karl has some excellent cases posted elsewhere that never seem to get the attention they deserve. I will try and find one that could be a good candidate and bring it to this thread. Probably best for the BOLA discussion to fizzle out first as it will just make it messy otherwise.

In the meantime the cases Karl put forward on his 'UFO close Sightings' is very interesting, it would be nice to see some skeptics go and have a look and give their thoughts....

[booNyzarC]

Slave2Fate, on 04 April 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

I agree, it seems as though we've (yet again   ) exhausted the BoLA case. As for the bolded part, good luck, I've been waiting since I joined this thread (the original BE1 thread actually)...still waiting unfortunately.

Even though we may not have uncovered adequate evidence to support the notion of alien visitation, I've learned an awful lot about many subjects by direct participation in this thread and others.